Ability to manage everyday technology after acquired brain injury

References

• Cicerone KD, Dahlberg C, Malec JF, Langenbahn DM, Felicetti T, Kneipp S, Ellmo W, Kalmar K, Giacino JT, Harley JP, et al. Evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation: Updated review of the literature from 1998 through 2002. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005;86:1681–1692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees L, Marshall S, Hartridge C, Mackie D, Weiser M. Cognitive interventions post acquired brain injury. Brain Injury 2007;21:161–200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teasell R, Bayona N, Marshall S, Cullen N, Bayley M, Chundamala J, Villamere J, Mackie D, Rees L, Hartridge C, et al. A systematic review of the rehabilitation of moderate to severe acquired brain injuries. Brain Injury 2007;21:107–112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Der Naalt J. Prediction of outcome in mild to moderate head injury: A review. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 2001;23:837–851
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson G, Tham K, Borg J. Occupational gaps in everyday life 1–4 years after acquired brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2006;38:159–165
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson U, Högberg H, Bernspång B. Participation in everyday occupations in a late phase of recovery after brain injury. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2007;14:116–125
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wæhrens EE, Fisher AG. Improving quality of ADL performance after rehabilitation among people with acquired brain injury. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2007;14:250–257
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wæhrens EE, Fisher AG. Developing linear ADL ability measures based on the ADL Taxonomy: A Rasch analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2009;16:159–171
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponsford J, McLaren A, Schönberger M, Burke R, Rudzki D, Olver J, Ponsford M. The association between Apolipoprotein E and traumatic brain injury severity and functional outcome in a rehabilitation sample. Journal of Neurotrauma 2011;28:1683–1692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kielhofner G. Model of human occupation. Theory and application. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008
   Google Scholar
• Nygård L, Starkhammar S. The use of everyday technology by people with dementia living alone: Mapping out the difficulties. Aging and Mental Health 2007;11:144–155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emiliani PL. Assistive Technology (AT) versus Mainstream Technology (MST): The research perspective. Technology and Disability 2006;18:19–29
   Google Scholar
• Lawton MP. Environment and aging. 2nd ed. Albany: Plenum; 1986
   Google Scholar
• Lindén A, Lexell J, Lund ML. Perceived difficulties using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: Influence on activity and participation. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2010;17:267–275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engström A-L, Lexell J, Lund ML. Difficulties in using everyday technology after acquired brain injury: A qualitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2010;17:233–243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassberg A, Prellwitz M, Larsson Lund M. The challenges of everyday technology in the workplace for peoples with acquired brain injury. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy Early on line 2013;4:272--281
   Google Scholar
• Larsson Lund M, Lövgren-Engström A, Lexell J. Using everyday technology to compensate for difficulties in task performance in daily life: Experiences in persons with acquired brain injury and their significant others. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2011;6:402–411
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage Publication; 2002
   Google Scholar
• Nygård L. Användarmanual för: Management for Everyday Technology Assessment (META). Stockholm: Division of Occupational Therapy, Karolinska Institutet; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of the ability to manage technology in everyday life. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2011;18:26–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JTL, Pettigrew LEL, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: Guidelines for their use. Journal of Neurotrauma 1998;15:573–580
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson JTL, Pettigrew LEL, Teasdale GM. Emotional and cognitive consequences of head injury in relation to the Glasgow Outcome Scale. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 2000;69:204–209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Facets computer program for many-facet Rasch measurement, version 3.71.2. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com; 2013
   Google Scholar
• SPSS. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS): Version 16.0.1. Chicago: SPSS; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Almkvist O, Kottorp A, Nygård L. Ability to manage everyday technology: A comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2010;5:462–469
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olson KE, O'Brien MA, Rogers WA, Charness N. Diffusion of technology: Frequency of use for younger and older adults. Ageing International 2011;36:123–145
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Selwyn N, Gorard S, Furlong J, Madden L. Older adults' use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing and Society 2003;23:561–582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris MG, Venkatesh V, Ackerman PL. Gender and age differences in employee decisions about new technology: An extension to the theory of planned behaviour. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2005;52:69–84
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patomella A, Kottorp A, Malinowsky C, Nygård L. Factors that impact the level of difficulty of everyday technology in a sample of older adults with and without cognitive impairment. Technology and Disability 2011;23:243–250
   Google Scholar
• Malinowsky C, Almkvist O, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Individual variability and environmental characteristics influence older adults' abilities to manage everyday technology. International Psychogeriatrics 2012;1:1–12
   Google Scholar
• Boman I, Tham K, Granqvist A, Bartfai A, Hemmingsson H. Using electronic aids to daily living after acquired brain injury: A study of the learning process and the usability. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 2007;2:23–33
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boman I, Lindberg Stenvall C, Hemmingsson H, Bartfai A. A training apartment with a set of electronic memory aids for patients with cognitive problems. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2010;17:140–148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancioni GE, Bosco A, Belardinelli MO, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J. An overview of intervention options for promoting adaptive behavior of persons with acquired brain injury and minimally conscious state. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2010;31:1121–1134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björk E. Many become losers when the Universal Design perspective is neglected: Exploring the true cost of ignoring Universal Design principles. Technology and Disability 2009;21:117–125
   Google Scholar
• Lenker JA, Paquet VL. A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology 2003;15:1–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar